Did the two of you even read the article? Nowhere did it say that the global mean temperature is not accurately measurable. It just talked about how Greenland's warming is masked by the "influential North American Oscillation (NAO), a rhythmic air pressure pattern in the North Atlantic". Nowhere did it say that global warming is only a natural occurance. It did talk about the last "interglacial" (the last warming cycle), but it also said "carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels also have a global warming effect, but with a more lasting affect." In other words, our planet does go through warming and cooling cycles on its own, but humans can definitely make the changes more extreme with our fossil fuel burning.

Here are some facts for you. Burning fossil fuels (120 billion gallons annually just in the US) releases tons of CO2. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. This CO2 doesn't just magically disappear. Sure some of it is converted back to O2 through photosynthesis, but with man's deforestation and pollution the trees have a hard time keeping up. It's been documented that CO2 has been increasing in concentration since the industrial revolution. The only thing that isn't totally clear is how much human-emitted CO2 is contributing to our global warming. But should this uncertainty make us totally dismiss the problem? Motor oil is a proven carcinogen in lab animals, but in small quantities and brief exposures it hasn't been shown to cause cancer. Do you use this uncertainty to dismiss the cancer risk and not wear gloves while working with oil? If so, then you're stupid. And you're equally stupid if you totally dismiss human-caused global warming just because it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond stupidity other reasons for dismissing it are political or economic agenda or a desire to "feel good" about your lifestyle. Peragro, I see that you have a F350. Could that be part of your position on this topic, in addition to your obvious republican affiliation?

Regarding "Bush's scientists", they tried to tell him otherwise but Bush has people whose primary job is to go through the papers written by reputable scientists and make any necessary changes to make sure the papers comply with his policies. Don't tell me you've never heard of this.

And by the way, Gore didn't invent the internet, he just promoted it and pushed it through congress to make it available to the public.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I read the article with an open mind. I will reread it again later. The jury is still out for me on the global warming issue.

What you stated, that we could be making the warming "more extreme", do you mean that when the GMT hits the highest point in the cycle curve, then starts down again, our contribution will have made that point higher, or that we will make it reached sooner? I hope that question is understandable, if not, I will re ask it later also.

Yes I did read the article and I believe LP and David did as well since they responded with a synopsis of what the article said. You, however, admit that that was the only article you read on the site. Which, by the way, goes into a very detailed explanation regarding manmade global warning - backed up with facts.

David is correct in that ONE volcano of large proportion puts out an equal to or greater amount of all the substances you mentioned than man. We have had many such eruptions in the past - yet not in the recent past. I never advocated dismissing the problem; I want to logically determine IF there is a problem to begin with - which we haven't - and then proceed from there. This uncertainty doesn't advocate dismissing the problem, but it sure as hell advocates not signing treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and other such legislation that costs people like you and me for no scientific reason.

As for carcinogenic substances, now you are definitly in my area of expertise. Were you aware that saccharin has also "caused" cancer? what about plain sugar which has been proven deadly in certain scientific studies? When changing oil I do not wear gloves. I am able, in the mercedes, to do so without getting oil on me. As for the 350, show me a vehicle that can carry six people, several sheets of plywood/sheetrock, and still haul a car trailer. BTW, it's diesel and as a result puts out less greenhouse gas than the comparable gasoline model. It is driven less than 300 miles a month and mostly for the purposes stated above. I suspect that if I keep it, it will start being powered by WVO or some mix thereof. This was the intent when I bought the thing. So, as you can see, I'm doing my part.

As for me. I've never been a member of a political party. I voted for Clinton and for Bush. You're other reasons for "dismissing" the problem apply equally well to your position - except I've got science on my side.

And finally. Al Gore did not "push" the internet through congress and make it available to people. It was a project originally begun in the late 60's by the defense department. Gore may have helped to wire a few schools here and there, but so have I. It was a claim that he made though, regarding invention of the internet.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

IIRC, Kyoto was voted on during the Clinton administration and was soundly defeated 99-1.

Let's check out how the Kiwis are coming along with their Kyoto compliance:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10331130

The US has moved on:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080305E.html

glenmore

I'd like to know how China and India are doing on this......right they were exempt, two of the worlds most populous and polluted nations.

Besides is anyone forgetting the fact grapes used to grow in Norway up untill the middle ages..something its still way to cold to do...and England used to be far warmer too....facts that the sky is falling crowd choose to forget.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Peragro, how do you know how much pollution one volcano eruption emits? Has anyone ever measured it and compared it to human emissions?

Please explain. I've got no agenda here. In fact I hate global warming and I wish it didn't exist. But I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't exist like some people do.

I never had much hope in Kyoto as I know how much the world is dependent on fossil fuel burning. The failures of Kyoto clearly show how hard it is to reach those targets.

I think the answer is both. From what I've read the warming of the last 100 years is faster than anything ever documented in the ice cores of Greenland. If the melting of the ice there continues, enough fresh water may be dumped into the ocean to stop the Gulf stream. And you know what happens then. Frigid winters for North America and Europe.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

The envioronazis should play the ponies if they are so sure of their ability to divin the future.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

look at Mt. St. Helens. Reletivly small eruption. lotsa data available for comparison.

I cut and pasted your comment here. If you would care to clarify what you meant?

You're missing the point - why are you trying to reach those arbitrary targets?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Volcanoes and CO2 pollution is apples and oranges, isn't it? I don't understand why this is complicated. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. No one argues that CO2 is not getting trapped, they seem to be arguing over whether there is enough there to kill us or not. I hate to be rude at your party, but one can compare this to someone arguing that the levees in New Orleans are high enough, a few weeks ago. Have we not now learned in the New Orleans catastrophe that perhaps one should err on the side of caution? As far as I can see, if my side were to prevail and I was wrong, little will be lost. If your side prevails and you are wrong, we are all going to die. I think those who argued against spending money on levee reconstruction regret a similiar out come.

No, they aren't. CO2 doesn't care who put it whereever. Both volcanos and man can put it out. If a volcano in one eruption can and has put out more than what man has and we are still here then logic would state that the earth can accomodate. Global Warming caused by man is a hypothesis. It should now be studied further. It is. Evidence is lacking to support it. If we continue to pretend it exists and legislate accordingly how much will it cost? Could you live on 1/2 of what you make now? Most people cannot.

What is apples and oranges are the N.O. levees and global warming. It was well known that levees weren't designed to protect against a cat 4 or 5 hurricane. That is fact. It appears now that one of the reasons they were'nt reinforced was for "environmental" reasons.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

No you're missing the point. The reason for reaching the arbitrary targets is to reduce the rate at which we dump CO2 into the atmosphere and hopefully slow down the warming process.

Dangerous logic. The earth can always accomodate. The questions is can humans accomodate. The earth has its own self-correcting mechanism. Part of it is wiping out the species that cause harm.

It is probably a hypothesis. I agree it needs to be studied further. However there is some evidence to support man-made global warming. The unusually rapid warming of the last 100 years and the corresponding increase in CO2 is some evidence, though I understand it's not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Kyoto was too ambitious for its own good. I suppose the new pact that the US is part of is better than nothing, but it probably won't help reduce global warming anytime soon unless it leads to abandoning fossil fuels for cleaner energy. That really should be the goal.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Does the earth, or has it in the past, warm and cool cyclicly? If so, was man present? If so, was man using the same elements and resources he is now?

I am not a geologist, but I am fairly well read on the subject. It was my understanding that volcanoes cool the earth by ejecting ash into the atmosphere that blocks sunlight. This has been the historical effect of large volcanic eruptions.

"Cost" seems ill-defined in your assertion. Money spent circulates to others. Some win, some lose, it is not some zero-sum game as you seem to indicate, where all come out of it out of a job. Our current economy has a cost structure where fossil fuel interests win and others lose. I see little reason to not allow environmental interests to play a bigger role in changing our culture away from that, and I see new industries arising from it where many will benefit.

You claim Global Warming is a "hypothesis" with "evidence lacking". I certainly have not seen that. There is one side that claims this is the case, infact it seems to be their entire case, that the other side has no case. But we also seem to have a another side that seems to have plenty of evidence that goes beyond hypothesis that supports its truth. There are also hard, cold, glaring facts - the mean temperture of the Earth is in fact rising, the ice sheets are in fact shrinking and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than it ever has been. If Katrina is the first of a series of monster hurricanes, will you consider it more evidence?

The earth has had climate changes before without man's influence. They're not regular, predictable cycles though, at least they don't appear that way. The concern with man-made global warming is that we may be accelerating these cycles to the point where we can't adapt fast enough to the changes without suffering massive casualties, though given the overpopulation of the world I suppose massive casualties from natural disasters are unavoidable regardless of global warming.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

How true. The most glaring worry is that we seem to have geological evidence that points to a "tipping point" theory. There is a chance we can influence the biosphere in a way that will cause it to rapidly change, with no time to right our wrongs. There is one hard truth - human life ends once temperatures pass 112 degrees F. Once temperatures go beyond that point, cold blooded animals get to reclaim the earth. It has, BTW, always been a lizard's world, human kind is but a short respite in the domination of this world by scally monsters. Why are we working so hard to give it back to them?